MARYLAND COMMUNITY COLLEGE FACILITIES PLANNERS COUNCIL. Minutes of the Meeting Held at Carroll Community College September 19, 2014

Transcription

1 MARYLAND COMMUNITY COLLEGE FACILITIES PLANNERS COUNCIL Minutes of the Meeting Held at Carroll Community College September 19, 2014 ATTENDANCE¹ (20) NAME INSTITUTION NAME INSTITUTION Mona Clites Allegany Shelly Bilello Howard Jim Taylor Anne Arundel Chuck Nightingale Howard Jamiel Farrar BCCC Sandra Filippi Montgomery Terry Bowen Carroll Jamie Karn Montgomery Bernice ( Bern - Terry s Assistant) Attended for part of meeting while Terry out Kristina Schramm Montgomery Gerry Kramer CCBC Jensine Stirling Prince George Miriam Collins Chesapeake Jordan Roberts DBM Anthony Patterson Chesapeake Fred Mason DGS Diane Branson Frederick David Beard MHEC Brad Phillips Dawn Baker Hagerstown (briefly) MACC ¹Attendance roster circulated during the meeting. FPC Meeting Minutes 1. Carroll Community College provided a delicious breakfast (and lunch). 2. Gerry Kramer called the meeting to order. Alan Schuman and Terry Bowen welcomed the group to the college. Introductions were made with a total attendance of 19. The FPC Directory was passed around for review and markup. 3. Brad Phillips (MACC) reported on potential upcoming items for MACC. Funding seems to be forthcoming as anticipated for this year. Capital is mostly for academic functions, but FPC may look at whether a request for funding of non-academic functions may be worth pursuing. Brad will be attending MACC meeting today to try to get a clearer understanding of the political environment FPC Minutes 09/19/2014 Page 1 of 5

2 4. Officer Reports A. Chair (Gerry Kramer): MACC presidents will be meeting at Garrett on 10/17. Good time for FPC members to attend to communicate with the presidents group. B. Vice Chair (Mona Clites): COMAR review committee members met with presidents over the summer. The most significant revision suggested was to put Facility Master Plans on a 10 year cycle. Many different affinity groups performed a review, and recommendations were compiled into the report. The legislative branch will also be receiving recommendations for COMAR revisions from four year institutions. C. Secretary (Jamie Karn): The final report from the COMAR review committee were distributed at the meeting and forwarded to all FPC members by . D. Treasury Report (Kristina Schramm): Invoices for membership dues will be mailed, and sent by in advance) 5. Agency Reports A. Jordan Roberts (DBM): 1. Institutions should have received budget questions yesterday, regarding capital funding requests. We should have also received appointment time. If we have any questions, please feel free to ask by phone or The overall Maryland capital budget for the year is over-committed by $300,000,000 right now at $1.3 Billion. DBM is developing the Governor O'Malley budget, then after election will develop the new Governor's budget. No way to predict what will happen then so they may continue to develop two budgets until January 1 (1 for Democratic governor and 1 for Republican governor). 3. Not all Facility Construction Program reviews are completed, but Jordan is hoping to have them completed soon. 4. We are welcome to let Jordan know if we are waiting for anything from him. B. Fred Mason (DGS): 1. All Part 2 Facility Construction Program reviews are completed. Everything looks good for the AE teams. DGS has received lots of drawings and specs. Expecting to receive public school documents now, so things will slow down a bit. The plan is to have all comments out within a month. C. David Beard (MHEC): 1. Thank you for getting all budgets in on time. MHEC is working closely with Jordan and DBM. Currently in process of reviewing the Part 1 Facility Construction Program documents, and hopes to have them completed within two months. 6. Old Business A. Review of Minutes from Prior Meeting: the minutes of the June 5-6, 2014 Educational Program were reviewed and approved with one correction: the business meeting scheduled for the second day was canceled. B. The MACC document "COMAR Steering Committee Recommendations" was distributed and briefly reviewed and discussed. The document includes comments from all affinity groups, and officers and the Chair. The Presidents and representatives of other affinity groups didn't make any changes to the comments that FPC reviewers submitted all comments were included in the final report. The report is structured in accordance with the COMAR structure, so FPC recommendations for various clauses of the COMAR at the relevant points in that structure. The MACC report was sent to MHEC, with recommendations for updates. MHEC will review and forward the document for legislative review - Administrative Executive Legislative Review. There will be a public comment FPC Minutes 09/19/2014 Page 2 of 5

3 period, then the final document changes take effect a few weeks after that. This is not officially connected to/requiring coordination with recommendations from USM (4 year colleges/universities), but may be advanced simultaneously through review process. 7. New Business A. COMAR Clause 13B : 1. Gerry Kramer initiated a discussion regarding COMAR clause 13B (Space Allocation Guidelines Capital Guidelines ( ) USM is considering proposing changes to the space standards/ratios for four year institutions, and at least one university (UMBC) is looking at developing custom space standards to submit with projects, with explanation of why the state standards don't apply. David Beard indicated that some other institutions present this kind of custom info as evidence of different needs - but MHEC follows standard space guidelines. Gerry suggested that it is worthwhile for each institution to compare actual space/hours of usage with the state guidelines. An example of inconsistency/inaccuracy is the space guidelines for labs - based on a type of lab that requires 100+ square feet per stations for 20% of weight, and 80% on smaller station size - 50 SF/station. David: FTDE is a critical measure, with Average Student Contact Hours (17 weekly contact hours per FTDE). But in reality it varies between institutions, from 15 to 21. MHEC is looking to work with an average, a reasonable number to use. David will work through this more, and convey a "conclusion." Gerry an institution s variances may arise from past records from the Registrar - who dovetail the history of which courses were held in which room/space - but use of space may not match the function it was designed for. This could distort the results, because different kinds of weekly student contact hours get mixed. New disciplines that never set up separate sections for lectures and labs (associated together for same credits), count various types of space use as one section, which conflates the credit hours. David agrees that this may be the case. Then the question is to determine what % of the time for that class is lab vs. lecture or other. Sandra Filippi made the point that the evolutions in pedagogy may make it much more difficult to come up with consistent and accurate weekly contact hours factors, particularly as different institutions adopt different pedagogical changes at different rates. David: MHEC has past actual numbers for previous year-from the S6 Form (Credit Hours of Enrollment), before issuing the estimates for the next year. MHEC could pull the actual numbers from prior year to put in the report. Institutions could then use actual and projected quantities together. 17 hours per FTDE is what is required per COMAR at this time. and having a standard is useful for guiding IR offices. Dropping from 17 to 15 would have an impact, but 15 per FTDE may better reflect reality. It depends on what percentage of students are taking lecture classes, and how many lecture classes, and which labs also have associated lecture sections. David: the good news is that exceptions can be made when there is a strong explanation to justify the unusual situation/request. That is why the Part 1 documents need a good review. Montgomery College Health Sciences Center was an example - used 22 NASF per station. 2. This subject may be a worthwhile goal for FPC analysis and action for this year. The speaker for the October FPC meeting may be able to contribute to this discussion, as they have experience with this subject in PA. Maryland participated in a study on this subject in 2007 with NC, VA and PA. The space evaluation formulas were similar in all of those states. There is a need to develop a formula that accurately reflects evolving space use. There may not be a lot of info/studies available on station FPC Minutes 09/19/2014 Page 3 of 5

4 size(s) for learning studios/flexible learning spaces. Herman Miller is collecting data and testing the results, but the study won t be complete in the near term. Attendees are requested to share any later thoughts on this subject with the whole group. B. Review of Last Year's Goals and Determination of Goals for this year (using "Recap of FY 2014 Goals and Activities which was distributed in meeting. Discussion began at Page 4 at section "Proposed FY 2015 Goals," which is the subject for discussion of new goals): 1. Goal 2: create an MS Access database entry for the entry of Facilities data to be reported to MHEC, MACC, other state agencies: a. This is still a desirable goal. Jordan suggested that FPC consider using Google forms, and Google Docs tools, as it is readily available, easy to use and free. David concurred and indicated that MHEC just began using Google Chrome. Can reach him at current address or david.beard@md.gov MHEC will let us know when they are ready for us to enter data via website/google docs 2. Goal 3 (Facilities Manual Update): Agencies had communicated that an update of the Maryland Community College Facilities Manual was underway. David reported that MHEC hopes to reach internal agreement by October on their approach to the update and will communicate it then to FPC. DGS and MHEC's changes are being consolidated. Agencies will provide a draft of revisions to these documents to FPC for review. a. Gerry suggested that the parking space requirements in the document are not accurate. In Maryland, the COMAR (per ADA requirements) requirement for ADA van spaces is 1 in 4 (1 van space per 4 ADA spaces, so 1 van and 3 standard per 4). This requirement applies per lot, not per campus. Each lot needs to be counted and calculated separately for ADA/ADA Van spaces b. Terry: Carroll Community College was told by state person that the 2010 update to ADA requires that institutions need to fund changes to bring all of campus up to compliance with new criteria as part of the next major project. Fred Mason indicated that this is the correct general interpretation of the requirements, but there are limitations on requirement, such as cost relative to project, impacts on buildings, operations, etc. David and Jordan haven't seen this requirement generate requests for funding for associated work in other buildings, parking lots, etc. Jordan indicated that DBM will deal with this possible requirement on a case by case basis. c. Terry strongly suggested that institutions respond quickly when Department of Justice inquires about any potential ADA non-compliance issues. Setting compliance efforts into motion is critical. A clearly articulated plan indicating the deficiencies, the sequence for addressing deficiencies, and the funding applied to perform the upgrades may help convey intent to comply. d. It would be helpful to FPC members to have an expert make a presentation to the group regarding the updated ADA requirements. e. COMAR is the relevant code re: parking spaces. Gerry is going to send more information 3. Goal 5: Bond Bill Review Committee procedures and checklist review and revision. a. The individuals who were on last year's BBR committee may be best able to develop the initial list of review comments C. Evaluate the space calculation formulas and the prioritization model: 1. Gerry: is the current model going to serve everybody as well as it needs to over the next decades. The first suggestion is admittedly "parochial": multi-campus institutions should have more than 1 "First Priority," but not one per campus. Otherwise maintenance projects, like roof replacements, don't get funded soon enough. Proposes that FPC consider a revision to the model. FPC Minutes 09/19/2014 Page 4 of 5

5 2. Jordan: one option for consideration is that maybe the Priority 1 isn't factored so heavily - maybe other factors are increased in weight. If the model is not adjusted, what will happen? On average, each community college that is requesting funding is getting one project funded per year. 3. Sandra: is there any news regarding increase in total state funding for MHEC projects? State capital budget is exceeded by requests by 30% ($300,000,000) and many of the projects are pre-authorized. 4. Jordan: one critical budget question each year is "has the agency/institution spent the money it was given last year? DBM doesn t want to give money to entities that aren't spending it on time. 5. Gerry will take on this subject to move it forward for further discussion. 8. Carroll Community College provided a fabulous lunch. 9. Meeting adjourned at 12:45 FPC Minutes 09/19/2014 Page 5 of 5